EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. R I SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners Employers, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pune, through the State of Maharashtra have challenged the common order dated 18 January 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, thereby reversed the order passed by the Labour Court, Pune. The operative part of the common order is as under:

(2.) ON 7 April 1999, this Court has admitted all the Writ Petitions. No interim relief was granted. This Court, on Civil Applications filed by the Petitioners, has passed the following order on 12 April 2001.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the Complainants were employed orally at new Circuit House, Pune for performing Room Servants cum Safai Kamgar in the year 1991. Their services were orally terminated on 10 February 1995. The work was of a permanent and perennial nature and definitely not seasonable and temporary. The New Circuit House is still in existence and in operation since long. Admittedly, the Petitioners without following due procedure as contemplated under Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "I.D. Act") terminated the services of the Respondents Complainants and engaged other employees. They were always working under the supervision of the officers of the Petitioners continuously and there was no contractor in between them at any point of time. They used to get the payment from the Petitioners and never from the Contractor. The muster rolls were accordingly signed by them from time to time. They were never terminated on the ground of any misconduct. The Complainants, therefore, lodged 13 individual complaints. The parties lead the evidence. One witness was examined on behalf of the Complainants, as agreed. The Petitioners examined two witnesses. The learned Labour Court without framing any other issues and without even considering the relationship of master and servant, dismissed all the Complaints. The Industrial Court, in the present facts and circumstances, including the material and the evidence available on record, has rightly noted that there is perversity in the order as the Labour Court failed to consider the basic material, as well as, the evidence, on record. Mere leading the evidence itself is not sufficient. The Petitioners having raised the specific plea that the Complainants were engaged by the Contractor, the burden shifted and lies upon the Petitioners to prove the same. The Complainants' case was throughout that they were under the employment of the Petitioners though appointed orally' they were working under their supervision since more than 3 years and 9 months. Though evidence was led and agreed to place on record, the Petitioners failed to produce the muster rolls along with other supporting documents.